Genetically Modified Kids

[publicunofficial]

I have no problem with genetically modifying children to eliminate certain disorders. In fact it should be covered by public health insurance (Which I hope is a thing by the time genetic modification is a thing.

Down Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy, and god knows how many debilitating disorders could become a thing of the past.

However, that's all it should be used for. Using genetic modification to change a child's hair color or height or facial structure is a terrible and vain thing to do. It's certainly not something I would trust parents to handle responsibly. Parents already give their children terrible names in order to to make their kids seem more "special", imagine all the fun genetic alterations these parents would make.

Imagine a world where the Beauty Pageant crowd has access to this kind of technology.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I have no problem with genetically modifying children to eliminate certain disorders. In fact it should be covered by public health insurance (Which I hope is a thing by the time genetic modification is a thing.

Down Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy, and god knows how many debilitating disorders could become a thing of the past.

Do you know anybody with Down's syndrome or cerebral palsy?

[RI]

This is a dangerous road to walk down. I suppose it is hypothetically possible that it could be used ethically and with restraint, but I fear that it wouldn't be used that way for long. I'd rather we didn't all together, but I'm a "rather safe than sorry" kind of person.

[Cory]

Do you know anybody with Down's syndrome or cerebral palsy?

Are you seriously trying to imply that we should not enable parents to have their children not have Down Syndrome or Cerebral Palsy just because people with those disorders might be somehow "degraded"? How? Do you honestly think that life for people wouldn't be better if they didn't have those disorders?

Insanity.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Down Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy, and god knows how many debilitating disorders could become a thing of the past.

Down's syndrome and the other less well known syndromes caused by nondisjunction are not solvable via ordinary genetic modification as they are caused by having too many copies of a chromosome (trisomy) or less often too few (monosomy).  As for cerebral palsy, tho there are some rare genetic disorders, such as lissencephaly, that some would classify as cerebral palsy, in general cerebral palsy is used as a catch all term for a number of different non-genetic brain disorders.

It would be nice to think all birth defects could be solved via gene splicing, but that isn't the case.

[OAM]

Being able to eliminate genetic disorders via this type of process is one of my conditions for actually ever having children of my own.  Granted, as I have some kind of non-specific condition causing leg issues, it would probably take a high level of expertise to be able to figure out what needs to be fixed.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Do you know anybody with Down's syndrome or cerebral palsy?

Are you seriously trying to imply that we should not enable parents to have their children not have Down Syndrome or Cerebral Palsy just because people with those disorders might be somehow "degraded"? How? Do you honestly think that life for people wouldn't be better if they didn't have those disorders?

It would be more convenient for the people around them, certainly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I take these sorts of remarks as unintentional compliments, you know.

[Cory]

It would be more convenient for the people around them, certainly.

What is this supposed to mean? Are you really supporting the idea that somehow having those disorders is a net neutral for them?

Also, answer the original question. Are you seriously trying to imply that we should not enable parents to have their children not have Down Syndrome or Cerebral Palsy just because people with those disorders might be somehow "degraded"? How? Do you honestly think that life for people wouldn't be better if they didn't have those disorders?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It would be more convenient for the people around them, certainly.

What is this supposed to mean? Are you really supporting the idea that somehow having those disorders is a net neutral for them?

Assuming they're cared for properly by people who care about them and know what they're doing, it's generally a net neutral to slight negative, yes. I admit that this is a big assumption. It also depends on the person.

This is also an entirely inappropriate register in which to discuss people with these conditions in general.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not only that they would be 'degraded' (in practical terms, that they'd certainly become lonelier, less able to access certain types of resources and care, et cetera; this is already happening, since most babies who have or seem likely to have Down's Syndrome are aborted) but also that I really could not care less about 'enabling' parents to have or not have certain types of children and I think the unspoken premises inherent in caring about such are both alien to my worldview and conceptually dangerous.

[Cory]

Assuming they're cared for properly by people who care about them and know what they're doing, it's generally a net neutral to slight negative, yes. I admit that this is a big assumption. It also depends on the person.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well in that case your worldview isn't based in reality, frankly. The fact of the matter is that parents want the best for their children, and they sure as hell aren't going to want them not to be able to prevent their children from having ing DOWN SYNDROME because of your little "opinion".

You are basically saying that you want children to have to deal with these conditions so that you can feel smug in your little "worldview". You might as well be giving people's children these conditions yourself. People like you just stand in the way, and the day will come when the locomotive of history runs you down.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

...I'm sorry, but I've lost all track of what you're talking about or why I'm supposed to care. People, shockingly, are allowed to have beliefs about disability that don't comport with the currently dominant medical model.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Maybe we should genetically modify children to use the quote function correctly.

[Cory]

...I'm sorry, but I've lost all track of what you're talking about or why I'm supposed to care. People, shockingly, are allowed to have beliefs about disability that don't comport with the currently dominant medical model.

I'm saying people with your opinion shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of progress.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

...I'm sorry, but I've lost all track of what you're talking about or why I'm supposed to care. People, shockingly, are allowed to have beliefs about disability that don't comport with the currently dominant medical model.

I'm saying people with your opinion shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of progress.

Which is, of course, your opinion.

[Cory]

Which is, of course, your opinion.

The difference being my opinion wouldn't involve effectively forcing people to have Down Syndrome.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Which is, of course, your opinion.

The difference being my opinion wouldn't involve effectively forcing people to have Down Syndrome.

It does, however, involve the commodification and presumptive 'design' of children, and further marginalization, hence further disabling, of people who are already disabled.

I have business to attend to. I will of course eventually be back but I'm not interested in pursuing this further unless you really really want to for some reason.

[PJ]

Capitalism probably would end up making the technology available to virtually everyone, assuming multiple companies would have the technology - you get truly rich by selling en masse, not to a select few. It would still cost money, but it would be available. The price would largely be dependent on the cost of the process, of course, as companies will still want to make a profit, but the process would likely decline in cost as well(a decrease of cost by 20% in production could be followed by the same amount of money being chopped off the price - that way you could sell to more people and thusly make more money) so eventually it would be available to most people, because quite simply there would be a demand for it that no true capitalist would ignore.

Also, in a communist society it's likely that it'll only be available to the elite few who run the joint - they might even make the proles dumber and easier to control with it, rather than better.

What I would worry about more is that the people having altered genes would be persecuted because of it. You know that there would be people out there who would kill altered people as abominations against God/nature/whatever with no remorse.

What doesn't add up about a capitalist society giving all humans genetically altered fetuses is, if that philosophy were true, we'd all have Lambourghinis.

[PJ]

That is not murder either. That is war, plain and simple. They get what's coming to them.

Now, reading your post again, yes, I support killing people who tamper with the sanctity of life. Not seeing what's so weird about that.

When you murder someone, you kill them intentionally.

[PJ]

Why are you people all so impatient too make the baby perfect before its born? We have education for a reason. And don't anyone say education could be eliminated with this. Education builts up intelligence, critical thinking, social skills, and you actually get to have a childhood. I would be open to fixing disabilities with this. But if this is optional for healthy fetuses, it would cause literal inequality in kids. And if it's mandatory, its the first step to becoming the Borg. (Star Trek Next Gen)

[Person Man]

So, people think that not conceiving  is the same as aborting? Under this rationale, banning gene splicing and gene therapy would create the precedent of being able to make almost every form of birth control a crime.


I am assuming that this topic coming to the forefront again because the FDA is finally considering legalizing gene splicing in humans.

[Person Man]

Anyone engaging in this "designer children" abomination should be put to death.

That's insane troll logic.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Can't say I have a very good opinion of two parents who would do something like this, considering that a vast majority of birth defects have a very low chance of happening when the mother is healthy.  But do they have a RIGHT to?  I can't see why not. 

[Cory]

Why are you people all so impatient too make the baby perfect before its born? We have education for a reason. And don't anyone say education could be eliminated with this. Education builds up intelligence, critical thinking, social skills, and you actually get to have a childhood.

I don't think this applies to what we are talking about. Nobody is talking about getting rid of education. You aren't making any sense. Genetic Engineering would solve problems that can't be fixed by "education".

We are talking about making people inherently smarter, inherently healthier, inherently better looking (and yes, that matters) and freeing people from genetic disorders. This is the next great leap in the human condition. Words like "ugly" or "stupid" to describe people will be a relic of the past.

I honestly think of people who would ban this the same way as people who supported slavery in the 1850's. The social conservatives on this issue would see people enslaved to their genes, enslaved to defects and disorders that didn't have to happen, and enslaved to not be the best they could be.

[Person Man]

and then there is the greens and reds who oppose this because it could damage the environment somehow or make nature the slaves of man or who believe that this will biological adapt mankind to the will of the Liberal Polity. I guess you could call these the true Luddites while the ones on the right are just typical complaints about socialism and secularism.

And then there is the reasonable concern that people will no longer be themselves because someone else has made them who they are but this is meant to make positive influences work more often, not to replace them....and it wouldn't make everything perfect. There would still be things that can't be cured and still things that would be the realm of personal responsibility.

[PJ]

Point taken. But you're also missing my point that if this is optional, it would be the exact opposite. It would cause LITERAL INEQUALITY. I'm all for fixing genetic disorders with this. Being healthy as possible is important, but if they are not disabled, why do they need to be "better looking." Can't you just accept people the way they are? Wouldn't it be better for society if we accept diversity rather than remove it from our society?

Why are you people all so impatient too make the baby perfect before its born? We have education for a reason. And don't anyone say education could be eliminated with this. Education builds up intelligence, critical thinking, social skills, and you actually get to have a childhood.

I don't think this applies to what we are talking about. Nobody is talking about getting rid of education. You aren't making any sense. Genetic Engineering would solve problems that can't be fixed by "education".

We are talking about making people inherently smarter, inherently healthier, inherently better looking (and yes, that matters) and freeing people from genetic disorders. This is the next great leap in the human condition. Words like "ugly" or "stupid" to describe people will be a relic of the past.

I honestly think of people who would ban this the same way as people who supported slavery in the 1850's. The social conservatives on this issue would see people enslaved to their genes, enslaved to defects and disorders that didn't have to happen, and enslaved to not be the best they could be.